1

PEFC and FSC standards

and certification
procedures: a
comparative analysis
Laura Secco
Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agro-forestali
University of Padova - Italy
International Winter Course
Auditors training as a CSR voluntary tool for SFM
San Vito (Belluno, Italy) 27th February 2009
The 2 most important Forest
Certification schemes' logos
Promuoviamo la gestione
sostenibile delle foreste
www.pefc.org
www.fsc.org
- 1 single international
scheme: FSC
- 1 network of coordinated
national forest certification
schemes: PEFC
- Certified forests area: about 8
of the total forest cover
Source: UNECEfFAO Timber Committee, 2008
Forest certification schemes
90 national certification schemes (source: FAO)
The FSC and PEFC
in the world
2
102.79 M ha in 81 Countries
(= 7% of the worlds productive forests)
10,472 COC in 81 Countries
Database: www.fsc-info.org
PEFC certification in the world
Interest for PEFC
PEFCC members
submitted
officially recognised
AUS
CILE
CAN
USA
PA
PDL
-----
CA
CAh
EL
SLD
EST
LIT
LAT
IPE
hTCC
PUSSIA
+
Europe
34 NatIonaI
CovernIng odIes
11 h ha of forests
4,420 CDC In 26
CountrIes
22,800 Iogo users
Australia 7 884 517
Austria 2 039 236
Belgium 261 664
Brazil 882 902
Canada 63 251 704
Canada - SFI 38 026 230
Chile 1 911 920
Czech Republic 1 883 149
Denmark 207 711
Finland 20 719 735
France 3 901 263
Germany 7 122 536
Italy 699 755
Luxembourg 26 202
Norway 7 537 102
Slovak Republic 1 199 648
Spain 1 084 828
Sweden 7 562 883
Switzerland 313 092
USA - ATFS 9 977 841
USA - SFI 20 711 908

4 countries
(Canada,
Finland, USA,
Australia)
= 160 M ha
81.2%
Update: 30
November 200S
Source: PEFCC
International
website
FSC and PEFC:
the rationale
3
Forest Certification schemes: how are
FSC and PEFC organised? And how do
they work in practice?
Both are based on:
SFM standards
FM certification +
COC certification -
> same approach
from forests to shops
logos (trademarks)
for products
labelling
Why PEFC?
The rationale
FSC is a scheme developed for tropical forests
In Europe forest are well managed under quite strict
rules and on the basis of a long tradition: no needs to
demonstrate what is already evident
FSC certification is an unsustainable cost for the small
forest owners and an unfair competitive advantage for
the large ones
In 1998 a new ombrella scheme was created: the
Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme
based on C&I of the Pan-European Process
2 different concepts
of forest certification
FSC vs. PEFC:
main "technical"
differences
+
Comparison between FSC and PEFC
forest certification schemes
But there are differences on 4 core elements of credible
certification schemes (FCAG WWF/WB 2006; Proforest, .):
1. Standards (contents, standards setting process i.e.
stakeholders consultation)
2. Certification (certification reports, stakeholders consultation,
auditing - surveillance, monitoring, labelling and claims uses)
3. Accreditation (transparency, respect of int. standards)
4. Internal governance mechanisms (decision-making
process: stakeholders involvement as voice & vote, approval
mechanisms of national initiatives/schemes)
PEFC system does not
substantially exceed the
international framework set by
!SO Guide 65:1996
Aggiungi da standards PEFC
FSC certification and
accreditation procedures
exceed the rules set by !SO
Guide 65:1996
(see Liviu's Nodule 2:
Comparison between !SOf!EC
Guide 65:1996 vs. FSC-STD-
20-001)
General
organisational set-
up with respect to
the international
rules framework
1. Respect of
internationally-
accepted certification
and accreditation
general rules
Decentralized system
(international rules quite general,
considerable flexibility is left to the
local interpretation => significant
differences in the requirements
and performances among the
national PEFC schemes')
Centralized system
(only in standard setting there
is a local adaptation of
international standards
devolved to N!s and
procedures, with rigorous rules
on how to perform it)
General approach
PEFC FSC
Source: FSC, 2009; PEFC, 2009; FCAG WWF-WB, 2008; CEPT, 2008.
Regionally developed sets of C8!
(Governmental initiatives):
PEOLG (temperate boreal forests)
ATOf!TTO guidelines (tropical forests)
10 Principles and 58
Criteria for world's
forests and plantations
Based on
Regional guidelines + national Criteria
and !ndicators
International +
national or sub-national
!ndicators
Standards
PEOLG: no explicit requirements for the
maintenance of critical areas and natural
critical habitats, no requirements to avoid
conversion of these habitats into
plantations.
ATOf!TTO: (minor) deficits in
management planning and internal
monitoring systems of operations; same
deficits as above + lack of provision for
traditional rigths of indigenous
population, for community relations and
for workers'rights.
General framework only partially
applicable at the operational level.
No significant deficits.
!nconsistency in
terminology for
protected forest areas:
`critical forest area' and
`critical natural habitats'
vs. HCvFs
Standards
contents &
approach
1. Performance-
based std.
2. Std assure:
harm to forest
ecosystems is
minimised; health 8
vitality, biodiversity
and productivity of
forest are
maintained.
PEFC FSC
Source: FCAG WWF-WB, 2008; CEPT, 2008.
PEFC standards for
sustainable forest
management
Temperate and boreaI forests:
- PanEuropean CrIterIa and ndIcators +
LIsboa operatIonal guIdelInes (PEDLC)
In tropIcaI forests:
- FevIsed TTD crIterIa and IndIcators for SF| (2005)
5
EconomIc + socIaI aspects
hanagement
system
PEFC standards for SFM in tropical
forests: based on ITTO guidelines
{system-based approach)
Criterion 1: Enabling conditions for SFM (Policy, legal and
governance + Economic + !nstitutional + Planning frameworks)
Criterion 2: Extent and condition of forests
Criterion 3: Forest ecosystem health
Criterion 4: Forest production (Resource assessment, Planning and
control procedures, Silvicultural and harvesting guidelines)
Criterion 5: Biological diversity (Ecosystems + Species + Genetic
diversity; Procedures for BD in production forests)
Criterion 6: Soil and water protection (Extent of protection,
Protective functions in production forests)
Criterion 7: Economic, social and cultural aspects (Socioeconomic
aspect, Cultural aspects, Community and indigenous people rights and
participation)
EnvIronmentaI
aspects
hanagement
system
EconomIc aspects
SocIaI
aspects
The international FSC Principles
and Criteria
EnvIronmentaI
aspects
1. Respect of laws and conventions {national, international)
2. Respect of tenure and use rights on forest resources
3. Recognition and respect of indigenous people rights
4. Respect of workers and local communities rights
5. Efficient use of all forest products and services
6. Environmental impacts: biodiversity, landscape,.
7. Forest Management Plan
S. Forest and forest management monitoring
9. High Conservation Value Forests
10. Plantations
PEFC FSC
Common ombrella SFM P&C
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
C
h
i
l
e
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
S
p
a
i
n

Common ombrella
SFM P&C
B
r
a
s
i
l
U
K
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
N
L
U
S
A

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

l
e
v
e
l
s
All other
countries Only those
countries with
an endorsed
scheme
Regional guidelines + national
Criteria and !ndicators
International + national or
sub-national !ndicators
Standards
Even if international procedures
clearly define decision making for
approval of national stds must be
based on consensus, it is not
specified consensus has to be
achieved among stakeholders
representing different interests.
National bodies are flexible in
defining their own procedures
(some of them are respecting the
criterion), but no evidences PEFCC
and !nt.GA properly address the
criterion when assessing a national
scheme; the `!ndendent panel of
experts' includes one member of
the PEFC Boards = not totally
independent.
Based on broad stakeholders
consultation, consensus,
balanced voting system (3
chambers) both at international
and national level, but:
for stds development processes
carried out by FSC N!s
stakeholders consultation 8
approval procedures are
satisfactory,
deficits for `interim standards'
by CBs: the decision making is
not based upon consensus
among stakeholders or a
balanced voting system.
Standards
setting
process
(issue directly linked
to internal
governance)
1. Consistent with
!SO Guide 59
2. No single
interest can
dominate the
process
3. Balanced
representation 8
input from E.E.S.
+. Consensus is
needed
PEFC FSC
Source: FCAG WWF-WB, 2008; CEPT, 2008 - mod.
6
FSC vs. PEFC basic comparison matrix
Limited stakeholders involvement
(see PEFC Governance Review, 2008).
Only National !nitiatives can be
members; only N!s delegates has
voting right in GAs.
External parties (not eligible as
members) are allowedfinvited to
take part as observers.
i.e. !nternational Council (PEFCC)
=> 1-+ votes depening on annual
cutting category of the Country
National Governing Bodies (e.g.
!taly) => 1 member, 1 vote
High stakeholders involvement
in decision-making - both
`voice and vote'
(i.e. stakeholders are involved in
all decision-making steps:
- Standards setting process
- FN system development
- Certification Assessment)
i.e. all !nternational
Association (FSC A.C.)
members and National
!nitiatives members in GAs
=>3 voting chambers, 1f3 of
votes each
No voting rights to N!s
representatives in GA but the
international members
Internal
governance
mechanisms
PEFC FSC
FSC governance mechanisms
!nternational Council (PEFCC),
National !nitiatives
=> 1 member, 1 vote
!nternational Association (FSC
A.C.) and National !nitiatives
=>3 voting chambers, 1f3 of
votes each
Internal
governance
PEFC FSC
environmental
chamber
FSC International
International
Board
North-South
balance in
each chamber
social
chamber
economic
chamber
General
Assembly
FSC National Initiatives
General
assembly
National
standard
setting
committee
National
board
PEFC governance mechanism
!nternational Council (PEFCC),
National !nitiatives
=> 1 member, 1 vote
!nternational Association (FSC
A.C.), National !nitiatives
=>3 voting chambers, 1f3 of
votes each
Internal
governance
PEFC FSC
PEFC Voting rights:
International GA:
- each PEFC N! has from 1 to + votes, according to the
annual cutting category (acc) based on UN ECEfFAO
statistics:
1 vote: acc<10 N m
3
2 votes: 10 N m
3
<acc<30 N m
3
3 votes: 30 N m
3
<acc<100 N m
3
+ votes: acc>100 N m
3
National Initiatives GA {depends on NIs rules):
e.g. PEFC !taly: !nternally: 1 member, 1 vote
Certification procedures issues are
mentioned in a general manner at
international level. Not clearfunique
provisions to national bodies
(i.e. huge differences among national
schemes).
!n some cases, weak procedures for
regional certifications.
Not clearly defined intensity of
surveillance and periods allowed for
achieving full compliance if NCs.
Deficits in stakeholders involvement
during audit: it is mentioned but no
detailed procedures.
Deficits in transparency: lack of
enough details for public reports'
contents and availability.
Procedure for complaints and dispute
resolution is available
Clearly defined at
international level. CBs
must conform to.
Peer review of certification
reports.
Clear and detailed
procedures for stakeholders
consultation during audit.
Public reports available.
Procedure for complaints 8
dispute resolution available.
Certification
procedures
1. Conform to
!SO Guide
65:1996
2. Auditing
procedures
3. Stakeholders
involvement
+. Transparency
5. Complaints
and disputes
PEFC FSC
7
PEFC regional certification
(PEFC Council - PEFC Technical document, 2007)
FSC vs. PEFC basic comparison matrix
Based on national accreditation
systems:
CBs are accredited by each
national Accreditation Body.
i.e. at international level, only the
general framework provided by
!SO.
Audits reports not made available
by accreditation bodies.
!nternationally operating
accreditation programme:
CBs are accredited by AS!
i.e. at international level, AS!
provides detailed rules
exceeding !SO requirements
and it is directly assessing
CBs' conformity world-wide.
Audits reports all public
available (AS! web site).
Accreditation
1. Conforme to
!SOf!EC Guide
65:1996 and
!SOf!EC
17011:200+
(!SO 19011:2002,
!SOf!EC 17021:
2006)
PEFC FSC
Also, it would be useful to assess the independency, effectiveness
and accuracy of the approval mechanims of national schemes
PEFC FSC
Common ombrella SFM P&C
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
C
h
i
l
e
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
S
p
a
i
n

Common ombrella
SFM P&C
B
r
a
s
i
l
U
K
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
N
L
U
S
A

Accreditation by
national accr.
bodies
Accreditation by
an Accr.Unit
created by FSC
Certification
bodies
Certification
bodies
Comparison between forest
certification schemes
{not only FSC and PEFC)
Several approaches, several
comparison matrixes and analysis:
- CEPI, 2001; updated in 2004
- Proforest, 2002
- Several research reports and scientific publications:
e.g. Cashore et al. 2002; Holvoet and Muys, 2003;
- FCAG by WWF-WB (the Global Forest Alliance), 2006;
updated in 2008
- CPET, 2008 (commissioned by UK Government)
http:JJwww.proforest.netJ
8
An example: the
CEPI matrix
{Confederation of
European Paper
Industries)
An
example:
the CEPI
matrix
CPET, 200S
Background
Review of forest certification schemes carried out by the
Central Point of Expertise on Timber - last update Nov. 2008
Commissioned by the UK Government to establish which
forest certification schemes are able to deliver its
requirements for legal and sustainable timber for GPP
policies:
from April 1 2009 the policy will demand that all timber and wood-derived
products must be from independently verifiable legal and sustainable
sources or FLEGT-licensed timber (timber which only meets the legality
criteria will be accepted in very special cases only)
Methodology:
- 5 schemes assessed (CSA, FSC, MTCC, PEFC, SFI)
- based on scheme documentation + input from stakeholder consultation,
each scheme invited to review the collected information and main findings,
technical review panel of 4 independent experts
CPET, 200S
Results for FSC and PEFC
41 47
10 10 Chain-of-custody
2 2 Accreditation
9 12 Certification
+ 3 Standard setting
9 12 Content of standards for sustainable
variant
7 8 Content of standards for legal compliance
PEFC FSC Criteria
Source: Nasiero, 2008 - mod.
Each criterion several requirements.
For each scheme, compliance with the requirements scored 0-3
(0=!nadequately addressed, 1 = Partially addressed, 2= Fully addressed)
For each criterion, total points assigned by counting all the requirements' points.
9
Comparison is used by company for marketing
SFI certified forest after
logging
FSC certified forest
after logging
Comparison is used by company for marketing
Final considerations
General goals and mechanisms are similar.
.but for several important points which influence the
scheme's effectiveness and credibility huge
differences can be identified:
- standards contents as regards social aspects
- stakeholders involvement
- transparency
- group or regional certification procedures (PEFC)
- accreditation rules
!n any case, comparison should be carried out on a
case-by-case basis (comparing national schemes)
(mainly because of huge differences among PEFC
National Schemes